There is no EVIDENCE in the cosmological argument. There you go demonstrating your lack of education. There is nothing in the cosmological argument that can be called EVIDENCE. From it's first point to its' last it violates everything we know about the laws of science and logic.

1. Everything that exists has a cause. You do understand this argument was first used by Aristotle to prove the existence of Zeus. Next... Who or what is Kalam? I know you are too dense to have ever asked that question. Doesn't the word sound ISLAMIC?

It's a word from the frigging Quaaran used to justify the existence of Allah. Are you switching religions on us. "The Arabic term Kalām means "speech, word, utterance" among other things, and its use regarding Islamic theology is derived from the expression "Word of God" (Kalām Allāh) found in the Qur'an"

IN SHORT: This argument is used by the ignorant to justify any god. (It actually justifies no God or gods at all and only asserts that there was once a beginning. NOT A FIRST CAUSE AND NOT A GOD.) You can not get from a beginning or even a first beginning to a god using this argument. It has just been re popularized once again by that PEDANTIC IDIOT WLC and all the little religious Minions think it is Great Shit. IT'S NOT!!! If everything has a cause, you do not get to stop at the big bang. The universe did not pop into existence at the Big Bang.

2. The universe began to exist. HOW IN THE FK DO YOU KNOW THAT? All we know is that there was once a hot dense mass or a singularity and then it began to expand. We call this expansion the "BIG BANG," though it is not a Bang, and it is not a theory of COSMOLOGY (Creation of the universe.) It is a theory of the expansion of the universe, There is nothing in this argument that asserts the Bang (expansion) could not have come from natural causes. There is nothing in the argument that asserts the Bang's (expansion's) cause did not have a cause. The Cosmological argument is lame from top to bottom.

3. It does not follow that the universe has a cause.

BUT! LET'S BE FUCKING GENEROUS. Let's assume you have a brain between your ears and the universe was caused. The Cosmological argument says NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THAT CAUSE. NOTHING. The cause could be COMPLETELY NATURAL. THE CAUSE COULD HAVE A CAUSE. THE CAUSE COULD BE ANY ONE OF A MILLION GODS. THE CAUSE COULD BE SPACE ALIENS. THE CAUSE COULD BE BLUE UNIVERSE CREATING BUNNY RABBITS. HOW DID YOU RULE OUT OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT UNIVERSE CREATING BLUE BUNNY RABBITS?

There is nothing in the Cosmological Argument that asserts a "FIRST CAUSE." For all you know, again only assuming you inane conclusion that the universe had a cause, THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL THAT THE CAUSE COULD NOT HAVE A CAUSE, AND THAT CAUSE COULD HAVE A CAUSE, AND THAT CAUSE COULD HAVE A CAUSE.... There is nothing in the world of science that supports the idea that matter can come from nothing. We have no example of nothing anywhere. All matter comes from the rearrangement of matter and energy that already exists. Asserting that your God done it is 'SPECIAL PLEADING" a fallacy of logic.

You do not get to assert that everything has a cause and then stop at one of the causes because it happens to be convenient for you. THAT'S MORONIC.

The argument does not prove a "FIRST CAUSE EXISTED" and it CERTAINLY does not prove the existence of the ABRAHAMIC GOD, ZEUS, ALLAH, OR ANY OTHER FRIGGING GOD.

How is that evidence for any deity?

AJ777: CyberLn, then you disagree with Stephen Hawking, and Einstein. It is a first principal, your denial of the truth of the first premise does not make it false. Sapporo, you can know beyond a reasonable doubt which we do, that the universe(space, time, matter, and energy), all came into existence at the same moment. There is ample and convincing evidence the Big Bang model of the universe is correct. If you choose to disbelieve this evidence to support your worldview some might call that a delusion.

A ripple on the surface of a lake is not necessarily the earliest event in the existence of the lake.

1. First cause arguments BY DEFINITION don't evidence any deity. The clue is in the title,,,
2. The law of cause and effect has only ever been evidenced within a temporal condition, so it's pure assumption it applied before the BB.
3. Neither Einstein nor Stephen Hawking believed in a first cause or a deity, so that's risible nonsense.
4. Your first premise says "everything", it's fallacious for several reasons:
a) We don't know the cause of "everything thus this going from the specific to the general in this way involves assumption - Occam's razor applies.
b) In every example we have evidenced, the cause is a natural phenomenon, so going from all of these to a supernatural cause is pure unevidenced assumption.
c) The law of cause and effect has only been observed to apply in a temporal condition, so it is also an unevidenced assumption it applies before the big bang.
d) No physicist and the scientific community as a whole supports this any of this fallacious argument.

This argument is not objective evidence by definition, and even if this risible nonsense were valid, it still doesn't evidence a deity, for that a whole new raft of assumptions are tacked on, see William Lane Craig's laughable version.

Even then then if the argument hadn't already been entirely discredited, it gets you no closer to evidencing Jesus than Zeus or Thor. Not without yet more assumptions, and by now Occam would be having a seizure, and he was a monk.

Christ tell me this plagiarised nonsense isn't the best "evidence" you can demonstrate? What a joke.

You'll be trotting out the teleological argument next. Then the argument from design, now that is a belly laugh.

@AJ777

Hawking disproved the Kalam cosmological argument with this lecture in which he describes his no-boundary proposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcTASYcP14&t=9s

This is a quick overview of this no-boundary proposal ... https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/famous-scientists/physicist...

When are you going to read your frigging responses. The Kalam is not an argument for anything. Whether or not there is a cause does not even matter. THE FACT is that you do not get to insert your god as a cause and if everything has a cause you do not get to assert your God does not have a cause. You are engaged in "THE GOD OF THE GAPS" and "SPECIAL PLEADING."

The Kalam argument also has an equivocation fallacy.

During premise 2 the argument uses a SCIENTIFIC definition of UNIVERSE. (All matter, space and time.) The scientific assertion means that things began to exist in the way they exist now. This definition says NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL PRIOR TO PANCK TIME. NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THINGS EXISTING BEFORE THEY BEGAN TO EXIST THE WAY THEY EXIST NOW. Science unlike religion does not assert what they do not know without feeling really embarrassed for doing so.

In premise 3 it uses a colloquial or theological definition (Everything that exists and has existed or will exist.) Science is not saying anything began from nothing or that where was or was not a cause before anything. The only person asserting that there was NOTHING prior to the big band is the theologian. They magically create nothing, assert that the universe could not have come from it, and then insert their god.

DO YOU READ A SINGLE POST PRESENTED TO YOU OR DO THE HAMSTERS IN YOUR HEAD JUST KEEP SPINNING ROUND AND ROUND ON THAT LITTLE WHEEL?

"A theory based on no evidence is not sufficient to disprove a model with evidence."

Wow, irony overload.

Tue, 01/08/2019 - 20:21
AJ777
"even a genius can believe ridiculous ideas. "

Indeed, like Newton believing in vapid superstition like astrology, alchemy, and of course christianity.

Though I think neither you or the author you cited properly understand the late Professor Hawking's article. I'd be inclined to accept his work if it withstands scientific scrutiny, especially over a disgruntled theist ranting denials of facts supported by objective evidence, which they feel contradict their vapid and unevidenced superstitious beliefs.

Hawking also has said “ because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”, which only proves that even a genius can believe ridiculous ideas. https://www.rzim.org/read/just-thinking-magazine/stephen-hawking-and-god

And the author is John Lennox. And that was all I needed to see to know the article was inane and asinine at best. Like William Lane Craig, John Lennox has lost every last debate he has had against true scientists.

AJ, would you believe I am a scientist? I work at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory for the United States National Park Service as a field technician and analytical scientists. Dang that is a mouthful.

Why do you keep insisting on Religious Absolutists and Apologists would know more about science than an actual scientist? That would be like me going an asking a penguin down in Antarctica to tell me about the Bible.

John Lennox agreed to have a debate against two post-grad students in geology (I was asked but did not want to) about the Noahacian Flood Myth. Even the post-grad students completely and utterly debunked him.

AJ, you are hilarious. Again, why do you think ANY Religious Absolutist and/or Apologist would know more about science than an actual scientist? Dude...

rmfr

EDIT: fixed tags